It’s time to start paying for Android updates(extremetech.com)
extremetech.com
It’s time to start paying for Android updates
http://www.extremetech.com/computing/122395-its-time-to-start-paying-for-android-updates
13 comments
The article specifically says that phones should be unlocked. You wrote a nice little rant that everybody agrees with so you got a lot of upvotes, but completely orthogonal to the original article.
No, I do not advocate just unlocked bootloaders, but freed operating systems.
The overhead of these phone manufactures comes from their horrible customizations and differentiation practices. I find the idea of paying $10 for the privilege of updating the OS just so I can get the new version of Sense, or TouchWiz, or MotoBlur, or whatever Sony runs now repugnant. I think this idea pushes the market in the wrong direction.
The fact that volunteers create functional ICS installations shows that it doesn't take time or money to get ICS itself running. The vendors themselves add cost by leaving their taint on every interaction I have on the phone.
And the article itself says "OEMs that want to engage in paid updates should have a bootloader unlock solution for users that want to update on their own." with no reasoning at all besides it would make the writer feel warm and fuzzy.
The overhead of these phone manufactures comes from their horrible customizations and differentiation practices. I find the idea of paying $10 for the privilege of updating the OS just so I can get the new version of Sense, or TouchWiz, or MotoBlur, or whatever Sony runs now repugnant. I think this idea pushes the market in the wrong direction.
The fact that volunteers create functional ICS installations shows that it doesn't take time or money to get ICS itself running. The vendors themselves add cost by leaving their taint on every interaction I have on the phone.
And the article itself says "OEMs that want to engage in paid updates should have a bootloader unlock solution for users that want to update on their own." with no reasoning at all besides it would make the writer feel warm and fuzzy.
"The fact that volunteers create functional ICS installations shows that it doesn't take time or money to get ICS itself running."
????. I'm certain it does take both time and money. The volunteers are spending time on it.
????. I'm certain it does take both time and money. The volunteers are spending time on it.
It indeed takes time to build and release. I should have been more specific that I meant the orders of magnitude more time, 6 months, it can take to get a new minor version from the vendor, vs 6 hours from a kid working on a Saturday night building a major release.
The volunteer worked a non-zero amount of time. Thanks for pointing it out! I'll make sure to carefully guard my language in the future for fear of being unclear.
The volunteer worked a non-zero amount of time. Thanks for pointing it out! I'll make sure to carefully guard my language in the future for fear of being unclear.
No worries, I assumed that was what you meant, and I completely agree with your main point. I got a droid after my iPhone 3, and I don't think I'll be getting another android phone because of this problem.
Custom ROMs don't always follow spec, and often break apps, causing more fragmentation, so clearly this is not a full solution.
The overhead of these phone manufactures comes from their horrible customizations and differentiation practices. I find the idea of paying $10 for the privilege of updating the OS just so I can get the new version of Sense, or TouchWiz, or MotoBlur, or whatever Sony runs now repugnant.
Well, they don't have much to differentiate do they? They all get the same Android, the hardware is pretty much the same between classes of phones (the customer doesn't really care it's a Tegra 3 or a S4) and there are not too many ways you can tinker with the hardware design so they have to add their own interface to make it different.
Well, they don't have much to differentiate do they? They all get the same Android, the hardware is pretty much the same between classes of phones (the customer doesn't really care it's a Tegra 3 or a S4) and there are not too many ways you can tinker with the hardware design so they have to add their own interface to make it different.
Well, they don't have much to differentiate do they?
I don't think anyone chooses carriers based on the phone's bloatware (although maybe on the lack thereof), so I don't see why they need to differentiate at all.
I don't think anyone chooses carriers based on the phone's bloatware (although maybe on the lack thereof), so I don't see why they need to differentiate at all.
OEMs already 'get paid' for updates..through the MOs..
They are playing both sides of the coin by locking things down.
They are playing both sides of the coin by locking things down.
I think the real headline should actually say "It's time to stop submitting articles from Extreme Tech."
Their headlines never say the true intent of their article, and their article never comes to the conclusion that has been set up through the arguments. There is extreme bias and non sequiturs riddling the entire site.
It's a difficult read because of the logic errors, and everytime an article is posted from Extreme Tech, it seems everyone comes away with a different opinion of what was really meant. This isn't creative literature class. This is not a good way to run a website.
Their headlines never say the true intent of their article, and their article never comes to the conclusion that has been set up through the arguments. There is extreme bias and non sequiturs riddling the entire site.
It's a difficult read because of the logic errors, and everytime an article is posted from Extreme Tech, it seems everyone comes away with a different opinion of what was really meant. This isn't creative literature class. This is not a good way to run a website.
Wasn't Google thinking about tightening up it's Android policies to discourage manufacturers from hacking on "improvements"?
I don't think so, this would really restrict the manufacturers and make them less likely to use Android.
What Google has done is for ICS+ phones they must contain Android's stock themes so applications developed against said theme will look consistent on every device. The manufacturer can still have their own themes, and developers can detect if they exist and use them, but the stock theme must be available.
What Google has done is for ICS+ phones they must contain Android's stock themes so applications developed against said theme will look consistent on every device. The manufacturer can still have their own themes, and developers can detect if they exist and use them, but the stock theme must be available.
Aside from the strong note of Android OEM apologist emanating from this piece, the fact that this idea isn't /entirely/ preposterous speaks volumes about the sad state of the platform. What Google releases and what most buyers eventually experience are as different as day and night.
As a long time devotee and early-adopting "evangelist" (especially Maps, Gmail/Apps, Picasa, and eventually Android) it seems we are witnessing Google's decent into terminal failure to grasp the concept, and value, of "customer"...
As a long time devotee and early-adopting "evangelist" (especially Maps, Gmail/Apps, Picasa, and eventually Android) it seems we are witnessing Google's decent into terminal failure to grasp the concept, and value, of "customer"...
I think that Android OEMs deserve some apology, if anything so that folks can better understand the realities of the situation. People want updates like Apple provides with iPhones, but given how vastly different the business structures are in the Androidverse, that may not be realistic.
Apple provides updates to old phones because it has a strong financial incentive to do so: They don't just sell phones, they also operate an app marketplace for those phones, and they get a cut of the sale price of every app sold through that marketplace. So they want to keep all their users buying apps, even the ones with old phones. Part of doing that is giving existing users a reason to stay checked-in - and pushing new features to users of old phones through OS updates allows them to do that. They also want to have as much "awesomeness" in the app store as they can get, and one way they can facilitate that is by minimizing the hurdles that might prevent developers from using all the latest and greatest features in their APIs. On that front, the biggest hurdle imaginable would be if only a minority of the platform's users had the ability to run apps that depend on the latest API. So Apple really, really wants to keep old iPhones up to date as long as they can, not out of some sense of corporate altruism, but because doing this maximizes app store profits for them.
On Android, on the other hand, there is absolutely none of that. The only time Android OEMs see any money is when you buy a new phone. They don't care if you can run ICS+-only apps, because they don't see money from the app store. They don't care if you keep buying new apps, because they don't see any money from the app store. They don't even particularly care if you prematurely decide your phone is janky and outdated and you need a new one on account of no OS updates, because. . . oh wait, they do care there. They want that to happen, because the only time they see money is when your current phone gets tossed in the dustbin.
Meanwhile, as the article points out, providing updates to old phones is quite an expensive process. Especially if you're doing anything beyond pushing patches.
So. . . given that the incentive structure built into the Androidverse serves to heavily disincentivize OEMs from providing iPhone-style support, the question remains: Why on earth, then, should they?
Apple provides updates to old phones because it has a strong financial incentive to do so: They don't just sell phones, they also operate an app marketplace for those phones, and they get a cut of the sale price of every app sold through that marketplace. So they want to keep all their users buying apps, even the ones with old phones. Part of doing that is giving existing users a reason to stay checked-in - and pushing new features to users of old phones through OS updates allows them to do that. They also want to have as much "awesomeness" in the app store as they can get, and one way they can facilitate that is by minimizing the hurdles that might prevent developers from using all the latest and greatest features in their APIs. On that front, the biggest hurdle imaginable would be if only a minority of the platform's users had the ability to run apps that depend on the latest API. So Apple really, really wants to keep old iPhones up to date as long as they can, not out of some sense of corporate altruism, but because doing this maximizes app store profits for them.
On Android, on the other hand, there is absolutely none of that. The only time Android OEMs see any money is when you buy a new phone. They don't care if you can run ICS+-only apps, because they don't see money from the app store. They don't care if you keep buying new apps, because they don't see any money from the app store. They don't even particularly care if you prematurely decide your phone is janky and outdated and you need a new one on account of no OS updates, because. . . oh wait, they do care there. They want that to happen, because the only time they see money is when your current phone gets tossed in the dustbin.
Meanwhile, as the article points out, providing updates to old phones is quite an expensive process. Especially if you're doing anything beyond pushing patches.
So. . . given that the incentive structure built into the Androidverse serves to heavily disincentivize OEMs from providing iPhone-style support, the question remains: Why on earth, then, should they?
Well one might hope that the incentive for providing iPhone style support would be iPhone style customer satisfaction.
The situation you describe is basically that the OEMs didn't get a good deal from their OS provider and are choosing to pass the costs on to their customers in terms of poorer after sales service instead of higher up-front costs.
As for Apple, they clearly don't do anything out of altruism, but they seem to try to have deliberately structured to maximize customer satisfaction over time so as to justify higher margins.
The situation you describe is basically that the OEMs didn't get a good deal from their OS provider and are choosing to pass the costs on to their customers in terms of poorer after sales service instead of higher up-front costs.
As for Apple, they clearly don't do anything out of altruism, but they seem to try to have deliberately structured to maximize customer satisfaction over time so as to justify higher margins.
Why? Long term viability -- a concept that many large successful companies seem to increasingly, and mistakenly, assume is assured by their sheer mass. This, despite plenty of recent examples to the contrary.
With no suggestion of altruism or the like, it is simply good business in most markets to invest in the satisfaction of your customers. Since they were brought up, Apple is an excellent HIGHLY PROFITABLE example of this correlation to the bottom line -- possibly the poster child of the foreseeable future. There are other good examples to be found, very likely in the form of far smaller enterprises in your own area.
Pleasing your new and incumbent user-base is certainly no guarantee of success, but can anyone produce data that supports the idea that it would be net loss in the long run, all things considered? I mean, if the definition of a business is intent to profit, doesn't it stand to reason that the longer you operate, the more profits you generate? (In the most generalized sense, not discounting the possibly complex specificities of a large operation nor the vagaries of human behavior and progress...)
With no suggestion of altruism or the like, it is simply good business in most markets to invest in the satisfaction of your customers. Since they were brought up, Apple is an excellent HIGHLY PROFITABLE example of this correlation to the bottom line -- possibly the poster child of the foreseeable future. There are other good examples to be found, very likely in the form of far smaller enterprises in your own area.
Pleasing your new and incumbent user-base is certainly no guarantee of success, but can anyone produce data that supports the idea that it would be net loss in the long run, all things considered? I mean, if the definition of a business is intent to profit, doesn't it stand to reason that the longer you operate, the more profits you generate? (In the most generalized sense, not discounting the possibly complex specificities of a large operation nor the vagaries of human behavior and progress...)
> Why? Long term viability
Given how Android's been doing in terms of phone market share, I don't think Android OEMs need to be too terribly worried that failing to provide updates is seriously affecting their long-term viability. At least not for the moment. These kinds of complaints mostly only crop up among HN geeks like us; the bulk of the market at large doesn't know about, doesn't understand, or doesn't care about the issue.
On the other hand, paying for the development resources it would take to supply those kinds of updates would force an OEM to raise their prices. For reasons related to the above, It's reasonable to surmise that would be a suicidal move for any Android OEM. None of them are fueled by customers who love that company's product so much that they'd be willing to pay a premium price for it. On the contrary, the Android market is characterized by heavy price competition and razor-thin margins. It's like the PC market of 10 years ago: There's simply no mercy to spare for a company that blows any significant money on happy-warm-fuzzy customer support.
Given how Android's been doing in terms of phone market share, I don't think Android OEMs need to be too terribly worried that failing to provide updates is seriously affecting their long-term viability. At least not for the moment. These kinds of complaints mostly only crop up among HN geeks like us; the bulk of the market at large doesn't know about, doesn't understand, or doesn't care about the issue.
On the other hand, paying for the development resources it would take to supply those kinds of updates would force an OEM to raise their prices. For reasons related to the above, It's reasonable to surmise that would be a suicidal move for any Android OEM. None of them are fueled by customers who love that company's product so much that they'd be willing to pay a premium price for it. On the contrary, the Android market is characterized by heavy price competition and razor-thin margins. It's like the PC market of 10 years ago: There's simply no mercy to spare for a company that blows any significant money on happy-warm-fuzzy customer support.
The average customer is MORE likely to act on warm-fuzzies. Human psychology dictates it and the marketplace demonstrates it. The stock market takes that behavior to the bank daily.
The purportedly high cost of OEM development would be mismanagement at best and is simply an informal fallacy at worst.
Your rebuttal supports my statements, as captured by this statement: "It's like the PC market of 10 years ago..." Pray tell, which players remain from that era and, of those, which are not on the brink of insolvency?
The purportedly high cost of OEM development would be mismanagement at best and is simply an informal fallacy at worst.
Your rebuttal supports my statements, as captured by this statement: "It's like the PC market of 10 years ago..." Pray tell, which players remain from that era and, of those, which are not on the brink of insolvency?
The average customer is more likely to act on what they perceive as warm fuzzies at the moment that they're making a purchasing decision. That may or may not correlate with what geeks such as ourselves feel warm and fuzzy about in the abstract.
Regardless, you misinterpret me. When I said warm fuzzies, I meant companies doing things just to be nice to customers, regardless of whether there's reason to believe it will draw immediate profit. These things can't be reasonably expected to affect revenues for companies that don't have very strong brands (say, Apple) simply because they're things that people generally aren't thinking about while they're in the store. People in general are barely aware of HTC as an actual entity, so they have a hard time having any sort of emotional reaction to it, positive or negative.
Pray tell, which players remain from that era and, of those, which are not on the brink of insolvency?
Dell, HP, Acer, Samsung, IBM/Lenovo, Toshiba. . . and they're all doing fine. I just double-checked on their rough financials, and all but HP had healthy increasing revenue and profit over the past year. HP's profits are down, but still deep in the black.
Regardless, you misinterpret me. When I said warm fuzzies, I meant companies doing things just to be nice to customers, regardless of whether there's reason to believe it will draw immediate profit. These things can't be reasonably expected to affect revenues for companies that don't have very strong brands (say, Apple) simply because they're things that people generally aren't thinking about while they're in the store. People in general are barely aware of HTC as an actual entity, so they have a hard time having any sort of emotional reaction to it, positive or negative.
Pray tell, which players remain from that era and, of those, which are not on the brink of insolvency?
Dell, HP, Acer, Samsung, IBM/Lenovo, Toshiba. . . and they're all doing fine. I just double-checked on their rough financials, and all but HP had healthy increasing revenue and profit over the past year. HP's profits are down, but still deep in the black.
I stand corrected on the financial point.
And while we can agree that most people are largely brand agnostic in a number of tech-related purchases, sentiment still plays a role, even if it isn't as explicitly expressed in the way a typical Hacker News reader might.
And while we can agree that most people are largely brand agnostic in a number of tech-related purchases, sentiment still plays a role, even if it isn't as explicitly expressed in the way a typical Hacker News reader might.
I believe the only reason 3GS owners got iOS 5 was because of iCloud. Normally, Apple is quite happy to leave the oldest hardware editions in the dust with nary a care.
So they issue iOS 5 to every supported device and, lo and behold, iCloud has 80 million users overnight. It doesn't matter that most people think iCloud is useless, what matters is they frictionlessly transitioned 80 million people onto their servers. Now that they have those users they can figure what to do with it.
I don't believe Apple is doing this out of altruism for users or developers. I think they are honestly going after Google, Microsoft, Dropbox, et al. at the same time. And the most effective way to do that is to have...80 million users on day one.
So they issue iOS 5 to every supported device and, lo and behold, iCloud has 80 million users overnight. It doesn't matter that most people think iCloud is useless, what matters is they frictionlessly transitioned 80 million people onto their servers. Now that they have those users they can figure what to do with it.
I don't believe Apple is doing this out of altruism for users or developers. I think they are honestly going after Google, Microsoft, Dropbox, et al. at the same time. And the most effective way to do that is to have...80 million users on day one.
It's important to note that unlike older phones and Macs, Apple is still currently selling the 3GS.
The original iphone and the iphone 3G stopped receiving updates 3 years after release[1]. It's important to note, though, that in both cases the update cycle continued for a significant amount of time after the devices were no longer available in stores.
The original iPhone received its last update 1 year and 6 months after the device was discontinued: iOS 3.1.3 was released February 2, 2010 while the original iPhone was discontinued July 11, 2008.[2][3]
The iPhone 3G received its last update 5 months and 18 days after being discontinued. In this case, given that it had the same specs as the original iPhone except for the 3G modem, I think that iOS was rapidly becoming too resource intensive to continue updating for this device, considering that by 2010 the majority of the hardware was already 3 years old. That said, iOS 4.2.1 was released November 22, 2010, and the 3G was discontinued as of June 4, 2010.[2][3]
Contrast this to Android where some flagship phones don't even receive security updates after even a year (the chart in my references only includes notable Android devices, and ignores cheaper ones that go after the free w/ contract market etc.)
Paying for updates is not the solution. Unfortunately, unless Google or consumers grab the vendors by the balls, the only thing that I honestly think will do anything at all about this situation is a rather nasty worm that manages to do some serious damage to devices that haven't gotten timely updates. I don't want to see that happen, it would really hurt Android's reputation in the eyes of those who won't understand that the HW vendor is to blame for the problem, not Android the OS.
[1] Chart of device updates published some time ago: http://theunderstatement.com/post/11982112928/android-orphan...
[2] iPhone discontinuation dates and final iOS version: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_iOS_devices#iPhone
[3] Release dates of iOS versions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_version_history
The original iphone and the iphone 3G stopped receiving updates 3 years after release[1]. It's important to note, though, that in both cases the update cycle continued for a significant amount of time after the devices were no longer available in stores.
The original iPhone received its last update 1 year and 6 months after the device was discontinued: iOS 3.1.3 was released February 2, 2010 while the original iPhone was discontinued July 11, 2008.[2][3]
The iPhone 3G received its last update 5 months and 18 days after being discontinued. In this case, given that it had the same specs as the original iPhone except for the 3G modem, I think that iOS was rapidly becoming too resource intensive to continue updating for this device, considering that by 2010 the majority of the hardware was already 3 years old. That said, iOS 4.2.1 was released November 22, 2010, and the 3G was discontinued as of June 4, 2010.[2][3]
Contrast this to Android where some flagship phones don't even receive security updates after even a year (the chart in my references only includes notable Android devices, and ignores cheaper ones that go after the free w/ contract market etc.)
Paying for updates is not the solution. Unfortunately, unless Google or consumers grab the vendors by the balls, the only thing that I honestly think will do anything at all about this situation is a rather nasty worm that manages to do some serious damage to devices that haven't gotten timely updates. I don't want to see that happen, it would really hurt Android's reputation in the eyes of those who won't understand that the HW vendor is to blame for the problem, not Android the OS.
[1] Chart of device updates published some time ago: http://theunderstatement.com/post/11982112928/android-orphan...
[2] iPhone discontinuation dates and final iOS version: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_iOS_devices#iPhone
[3] Release dates of iOS versions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_version_history
> I believe the only reason 3GS owners got iOS 5 was because of iCloud.
I think it's more because they're still actively selling the 3GS, as their $0 entry-level iPhone.
I think it's more because they're still actively selling the 3GS, as their $0 entry-level iPhone.
Well, that and the 3GS is still being sold. Previously, Apple would retire the phone that came out 2 years previously when they brought out the new model.
> I don't believe Apple is doing this out of altruism for users or developers. I think they are honestly going after Google, Microsoft, Dropbox, et al. at the same time. And the most effective way to do that is to have...80 million users on day one.
Isn’t it beautiful when a company’s self-interests are aligned with their customer’s?
They get users and money, I get an updated OS and new features on my old phone. Everybody wins!
(iCloud useless? you might think that documents on iCloud is useless, but iCloud is also the brand name for email service, contacts, calendar, photos sync and automated daily backups. seems hardly useless to me.)
Isn’t it beautiful when a company’s self-interests are aligned with their customer’s?
They get users and money, I get an updated OS and new features on my old phone. Everybody wins!
(iCloud useless? you might think that documents on iCloud is useless, but iCloud is also the brand name for email service, contacts, calendar, photos sync and automated daily backups. seems hardly useless to me.)
The following is a wishing metric:
"If it charged just $10 for access to the update, that would be $150 million if only half of all users wanted an official update."
Few would pay for an update. Especially when the phone is likely to have even more bloatware added each update. Those who would want the update would install a custom rom, especially if it was unlocked by default. The only incentive to upgrade is when someone can't run the next big game.
More importantly, that new handset locks the customer into a new contract. That's the priority. Hopefully some egghead executive will realize that offering software updates, replacing batteries, and reducing monthly fees for loyal customers can earn them even more money.
Along a similar thought, I have very little desire to pay for Android software because developers have a habit of screwing their customers. I have purchased games with zero permissions to avoid adware in the past, only to have updates add a plethora of unwanted and unneeded security permissions.
Paid apps should not be allowed to add security permissions without giving the option for refunds and/or an honest Google code review.
"If it charged just $10 for access to the update, that would be $150 million if only half of all users wanted an official update."
Few would pay for an update. Especially when the phone is likely to have even more bloatware added each update. Those who would want the update would install a custom rom, especially if it was unlocked by default. The only incentive to upgrade is when someone can't run the next big game.
More importantly, that new handset locks the customer into a new contract. That's the priority. Hopefully some egghead executive will realize that offering software updates, replacing batteries, and reducing monthly fees for loyal customers can earn them even more money.
Along a similar thought, I have very little desire to pay for Android software because developers have a habit of screwing their customers. I have purchased games with zero permissions to avoid adware in the past, only to have updates add a plethora of unwanted and unneeded security permissions.
Paid apps should not be allowed to add security permissions without giving the option for refunds and/or an honest Google code review.
A customer with a six-month-old phone is never going to buy a new phone and extend their contract. If OS updates aren't available, they'll just tough it out. Thus offering updates for such phones seems like all upside.
May be we are barking at the wrong tree, carriers and device manufacturers that is. Case in point - Google's own Nexus S phone which has not yet received official ICS update! Either google intentionally holding it back hoping to sell more Galaxy Nexus phone with ICS installed or most likely the ICS leapfrogged at the expense of its backwards compatibility with the existing hardware. Google should wake up and smell the roses before it's going to be too late to repair the damage. Next time they announce a major OS update consumers will not even care because by the time they see the update on their phone, the next iOS version will be announced and pushed to iPhones on the same day.
This sounds ineffective. To most consumers, a software update is an annoyance whose benefits are often hazy. Look how hard they procrastinate free updates. So expecting money for an update to a device that's often replaced within a year or two is a non-starter.
The most effective thing Google can realistically do is ship desirable Motorola phones that get updated to the latest Android version the day of release.
The most effective thing Google can realistically do is ship desirable Motorola phones that get updated to the latest Android version the day of release.
If newer versions of Android monetize better for Google, then Google should be paying handset makers a bounty for each of their phones that is upgraded to the latest OS to encourage them to push the update.
Otherwise it is likely cannibalizing their revenue from selling new phones (or at least they think it will), and they have little motivation to invest in updates.
Galaxy Nexus owner here. I'm still the only person in my office (a tech company with lots of geeks) who's running ICS. It's really lonely here on Android 4.
I don't think that paying for updates is going to help matters - that's just another good argument to get an iPhone. Instead, I think Google has to start giving device manufacturers a cut of the Android app store revenue. Others here have pointed out that handset makers have no incentive to keep their customers using the latest version of Android. If they wanted to make sure that their customers were still buying Android apps, keeping them on an up-to-date version of Android would be more important.
I don't think that paying for updates is going to help matters - that's just another good argument to get an iPhone. Instead, I think Google has to start giving device manufacturers a cut of the Android app store revenue. Others here have pointed out that handset makers have no incentive to keep their customers using the latest version of Android. If they wanted to make sure that their customers were still buying Android apps, keeping them on an up-to-date version of Android would be more important.
There is also a comparison to the GPS industry (Garmin et al). They charge a fee for map updates, charged for traffic and only ever provided new functionality on new devices. Nowadays the market is shrinking - who wants such crippled devices - and the usually sold models include lifetime maps and traffic.
It seems to me that less in the way of UI tweaks and more standardization of drivers would solve the problem. Does anybody really buy a phone for Touchwiz or Motoblur? Could some of these tweaks be delivered as apps that can simply target Android releases instead of specific devices (with some sort of basic DRM to keep the average consumer from installing them on other manufacturer's devices)?
It shouldn't be so hard; the PC industry got this mostly right decades ago.
It shouldn't be so hard; the PC industry got this mostly right decades ago.
That seems like a tall order. You want them to charge for updates, but also make it easier for you to install updates without paying for them?
I think we should start paying for Android updates, but only by donating to the after-market Android community like CyanogenMod. These are the folks who bring the latest Android goodness to devices long abandoned by their makers.
Having to pay for Android updates would be a good reason to switch to iOS -- where updates are free.
The 3GS which was originally released with iOS 3 almost 3 years ago is still able to update to the most current iOS 5.1 for free.
The 3GS which was originally released with iOS 3 almost 3 years ago is still able to update to the most current iOS 5.1 for free.
And this is exactly the reason why paid Android upgrades is a terrible idea - Apple has set a gold standard for updating OS and paying for Android updates will make the situation even worse for Android users.
Ah, b0o seems to be hell-banned, but quite frankly, I agree. I've donated over $300 to various overlay maintainers for CyanogenMod.
Why? Because, time and time and time again, they manage to do in 2 months what it takes carriers/manufacturers 8 months (or really, never) to do: update the software on my Android phone to the latest release.
I kept both my Droid and Fascinate for a good 6-months or more extra because I was able to load CyanogenMod on it. They both were on higher versions of Android when I decommisioned them than they will ever see official builds for.
Give me an unlocked bootloader, follow the terms of the GPL and I'm happy. For regular users, if you want fast updates, buy Nexus or buy Apple. I'm a big Android guy, but honestly, if you want fast updates and the Galaxy Nexus isn't available for your carrier, and you're not willing to install CyanogenMod... just buy an iPhone.
Why? Because, time and time and time again, they manage to do in 2 months what it takes carriers/manufacturers 8 months (or really, never) to do: update the software on my Android phone to the latest release.
I kept both my Droid and Fascinate for a good 6-months or more extra because I was able to load CyanogenMod on it. They both were on higher versions of Android when I decommisioned them than they will ever see official builds for.
Give me an unlocked bootloader, follow the terms of the GPL and I'm happy. For regular users, if you want fast updates, buy Nexus or buy Apple. I'm a big Android guy, but honestly, if you want fast updates and the Galaxy Nexus isn't available for your carrier, and you're not willing to install CyanogenMod... just buy an iPhone.
Imagine a world where you had to buy a new desktop because the vendor provided you with Windows XP service pack 1 but decided the machine would no longer be supported? That situation does not exist, thankfully, because PC vendors never had the nerve to lock owners out of their own property.
The cell phone industry still thinks they should control every little interaction on the handset, forcing their bloated UI overlays, restricting features, and nickel and diming customers. I refuse to entertain the notion I should be giving these people more money for the sole purpose of formalizing their control my property.
I run ICS on a Samsung Galaxy S. Samsung officially will not support it because their resource intensive "improvement" called TouchWiz can't run on the older handset when ported to ICS. Meanwhile some kid, for free with spare time, managed to build a fully functional ICS version I run without issue.
At this point in time, locked bootloaders only exist to keep customers on the hardware upgrade treadmill. It needs to stop.